Search results

I seem to remember Fisher quite clearly setting out that was how the detail would be when asked about who would own the ground. Obviously as he didn't mention the term 'liquidation' in the sentence you automatically dismissed it as rubbish.

He refused access to councillors individual notes.

There is a significant amount of clubs where the ground is owned by a 'holding' company, not actually by the club itself - a notable one being Arsenal. This is what would happen in our case most likely. It is a moot point.

OK then... where are they? Has anyone ever seen them??

Spending £14m wasn't worthy of some minutes either.

I think that the club needs to 'control' everything that goes on at the Ricoh complex. To me it would seem the best way to do this is to purchase ACL.

CCFC is technically a business. However as it is a football club it has an emotive tie with it's fans, history, the city etc. No one is in dispute of that. When ACL/CCC/Higgs bought into the club... whether they like it or not they also bought into that.

More diatribe of how amazing ACL are.... Why don't we just fold CCFC, and restart with ACL Utd and then all the hero worshipping can be put to a more effective use.

Except them of course.......

I can see the stadium from my house... it's a quite a tragic story really. I know the new 'thing' is for fan-based ownership... but if there ever was there a cautionary tale it's this one.

This is the only deal that should be considered. Buy them out completely. This is where the club have to pay a fair price, and the council have to play ball.

What project? How exactly has that benefited the surrounding area and the city of Coventry in general?

They had a mortgage that they were servicing. They made extra payments on top.

Maybe so - lets hope you are right. People are rightly concerned considering we thought we had finally turned a corner upon our return to Ricoh. If SISU were offered same potential deal as Wasps and then turned it down then they would deserve the criticism. I'm not sure how the club can be...

Why do I need to be impartial? I already support a club that doesn't own it's own stadium due to a multitude of reasons, is it so wrong to not want to become a second-class tenant in a stadium that could be given priority to another team in another sport?

Hypothetical question. So lets say Wasps buy the stadium, and turf the club out. The club goes and builds a new stadium because it has no choice. Will people be supportive then of a new stadium?

They are hardly in condemnation of the move are they? I thought the paper was all about forgetting about the past and moving forward? Not finding every opportunity to drag up details from the past to lambast the club. I would have thought the CET would come out in support of the football club...

I'm not saying they do... but given that a lot of the comments he makes don't actually come to fruition. Most people don't believe a word he says anyway. Unless of course it's to suit an argument.... then it's gospel.

In the last month we have not heard that - in fact we have been told that the club could potentially stay long term. That's hardly the rhetoric of a club looking to get out at the earliest opportunity. EDIT - I am referring to the comments of Waggott.. the guy that did the deal to return.

Where did I say they should? Of course they should have their money back. My point was referring to the fact that Higgs have not taken profit from the ACL venture. So are they really a children's charity (in the context of this deal only) if they are not utilising the money from it to support...